Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: scott_jiminez who wrote (39345)	11/9/2000 1:38:39 PM
From: Robert O	Respond to of 70976

ot Scott: Of course when the specter of 'voter irregularity' is raised it is fitting for a judge to determine whether there is irregularity that would constitute a reason to follow reestablished guidelines for handling legitimate irregularities. My point is that the ballot format in question will not constitute an irreparable harm. I liken this to an appeal based on grounds the trail judge erred in some way so egregious that an argument is made for a new trail. The circumstances we have come to know do not qualify. But we shall (sooner that later I hope) see which of us will win the day. God Bless America. RO Sam: Certain things in our democracy are so important they need to be handled so very special. Look at the death penalty...10 years of appeals is 'normal.' The system wants to ensure no or few missteps (turns out in IL quite a few). The voting process is one of those very special items. There are very specific guidelines for what can justify a revote. Can anyone find a link so we can all read these for ourselves? Let's follow what had already been established as the law of our fine land, eh. Just as a side note for those that 'double punched' on President thereby eliminating their vote... what in the world were they thinking? Why not get another card they KNEW they had punched twice...did they figure it would be prorated 50/50? Make the process idiot proof as possible, at least that error should be easily unallowable.